Zlmark

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Welcome!

Hi Zlmark! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account has extended confirmed rights (automatically granted when an account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits).

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Selfstudier: - I'm new to this, so any advice on the process is greatly appreciated.

Reminder, per WP:ARBECR and the above restrictions, you are restricted to the making of edit requests only, nothing more. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

Does this mean that I'm not allowed to comment on the Talk page? Zlmark (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That's right, straightforward edit requests (WP:EDITXY) only. If you are interested in the AI/IP topic area generally, the best thing is to rack up 500 edits elsewhere first. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Got it - thanks. Zlmark (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Reminder, edit requests only. I have removed your comments at RSN. Please comply with the restrictions, thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see any restrictions on the RSN page - isn't it open for everyone? Zlmark (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The only thing you are permitted to do in the topic area is make edit requests at article talk pages, that's it. It doesn't matter what restrictions you see at a particular page, if the matter is dealing with the AI/IP conflict "broadly construed" (ie even if its only tangentially), then you are not permitted to engage. Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I see - I missed the part that the restrictions apply to *everything* related to this topic , thought they only apply to specific pages.

Am I allowed to add edit requests to the RSN page? Zlmark (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

you are allowed to participate and edit the RSN page in general but not in relation to topics subject to ECR restrictions. There would be no point in making an edit request at that page because it is not an article but a place for internal project discussions about source reliability. Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought that if I'm allowed to contribute by making an edit request at article pages, it would make even more sense to allow this form of contribution in internal project discussions.

In both cases I point to what I consider a relevant information, and the senior editors ca Zlmark (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

can then decide whether the suggested info is useful or not Zlmark (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Internal project discussions (RFC, RM, etcetera) are all excluded, straightforward edit requests only, that's it. If you are very interested in the topic area best way to engage with it is to rack up 500 edits. Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

ok, got it

Thank you for taking the time to explain it - really appreciate it. Zlmark (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Please respect the sort order when adding links in "See also" sections, and don't include links that are in the article body

I see that recently you added links to "See also" sections of articles. The MOS:SEEALSO guideline instructs that when the links in a "See also" section are sorted in a certain order, new links should be added in that order, such as alphabetical order. You seem to have overlooked that sort order in several instances. Furthermore, the section generally should not include links that are already in the article body, per the MOS:NOTSEEALSO guideline. Biogeographist (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I'll take a loot at it now and fix it. Zlmark (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:GAMING

I have removed your extended-confirmed permissions for gaming the system by making hundreds of minor edits over the past few days to gain the extended-confirmed right and then immediately taking part in ARBPIA discussions. As you are no longer extended-confirmed WP:ECR applies to your edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you please explain what was exactly the violation on my part?

The requirement for obtaining the extended-confirmed permissions was to have 500+ edits, and I haven't seen any reservations regarding the nature or scope of those edits.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, no waiting period is required after obtaining the extended-confirmed permissions, before one is allowed to take part in ARBPIA discussions.

So what is the justification for revoking this rights? Zlmark (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:PGAME. Although the edits were repairing a maintenance issue the community has held that rapid minor edits to gain permissions are gaming. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

ok, thanks for clarification - I wasn't aware that this is considered gaming - I saw other people doing similar edits on the pages I contributed to and thought it's a legitimate way to contribute and earn the extended-confirmed permissions.

I also took a look at the WP:Gaming page, in order to understand the rules better, and I see that is states that "Wikipedia sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming".

Accordingly, I'd really appreciate it if you could restore the permissions and let me know what would be the best way for me to proceed. Zlmark (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed privilege is used as a rough proxy for Wikipedia editing experience. Do you already have editing experience here? Looking at your edits it seems quite likely that you do. If you describe that experience perhaps you can make a case for why EC privileges should be restored. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Editing

Please do not mark edits as minor unless they really are minor. Also we do not usually remove secondary sources and replace them with primary sources, rather the other way around. Selfstudier (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Isn't a change of a reference considered minor?
2. If the secondary source is just used to quote a primary source, doesn't it make more sense to reference the primary source directly?

Zlmark (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Adding a full stop, comma etcetera, is minor.

2. WP uses secondary sources for preference unless there is good reason for using a primary nor do we interpret primary sources. Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Got it
2. I'm talking about a very specific scenario of quotes from official documents - in this case isn't it better to use a direct reference to the official document, rather than reference a secondary source that, in turn, quotes the official document?

Zlmark (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If there is a secondary we use that in preference to a primary. See WP:PRIMARY. Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that it says that secondary sources are preferable for synthesis and interpretation, but "primary source is generally the best source for its own contents", which is exactly the case here. Zlmark (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course but the situation I am referring to is your removal of a secondary source and replacement of it with a primary source, that's almost never the right thing to be doing. What's the problem with the secondary? Why does it need to be replaced? You could add the primary as additional support for the secondary but why does it need it? Or you could add another secondary. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The secondary source contained a truncated quote, omitting a critical subsequent sentence, without which the meaning of the first part can be easily misinterpreted. I also added an additional quote from the same primary source, that further clarifies the context and not mentioned at all in the secondary source. Zlmark (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

without which the meaning of the first part can be easily misinterpreted Yes but then you are interpreting the primary source.

that further clarifies the context and not mentioned at all in the secondary source. Same again.

What you need to do here is find a secondary that does address these issues and add it in support of the edit you want to make.

As a general rule do not remove sources without a good reason. Your own opinions of its relevance or completeness are not a good reason. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

ok, I see your point.

Another indirectly-related question - my EC permissions have been revoked today by @ScottishFinnishRadish, who accused me of "gaming the system" for doing a lot of minor edits for the CW project. I explained to them that I didn't realize that there are some limitations on the kind of edits you can do, in order to qualify for the EC permissions, but they haven't responded so far.

So, I would like to understand, first of all, what I need to do, in order to regain those permissions.

In addition, I saw that you revoked some edits I made today, when I still had EC, and I want to make sure that I don't break any more unarticulated rules, so the questions is - am I allowed in the meantime to suggest edits at the "Talk" tabs of the EC-restricted pages? Zlmark (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw that you made talk page edits, that might be considered as edit requests, even if not exactly in the right form, I didn't revert those. Ask ScottishFinnishRadish for their advice on regaining the permissions. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to talk to him to see what can be done.

And thanks for keeping the talk pages edits - I really appreciate it.

Just to make sure that I'm not accused again of trying to game the system - would edit requests be the best format for suggesting changes on the EC-restricted pages?

And would it be acceptable to use Talk pages edits, in cases when I want to suggest a more significant change - like removal or major rephrasing of a section? Zlmark (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit requests per WP:EDITXY, are permitted, are best kept straightforward, if they are complicated or need extensive justifications/explication there is virtually no chance that they will be implemented. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

ok, got it - thanks Zlmark (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that you removed my response to a comment under one of my edit requests - does this mean that I'm not allowed to respond if someone comments or asks a question about my request? Zlmark (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are asked to elaborate or explain your request that's OK, participating in any subsequent discussion between EC editors is not. There is always an element of (EC) editorial discretion involved, so someone might let something go on one page and not on another, the Zionism article is and has been troublesome for a while (in fact, there is literally no point in making an edit request for something that can be seen to be already under discussion on the talk page). Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

My edit request wasn't addressing the question of whether the sentence is correct, but only whether it's justified to have it repeated twice verbatim in the article and whether the lead is the right place for it.

Since one of the EC editors responded to this point specifically, I thought there was a justification for clarifying the reasons why I made this request. Zlmark (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a requirement that anything in the lead has to be in the body and that the lead summarizes what's in the article body. So there a number of possible arguments, atm we are just dealing with every tom, dick and harry that doesn't think it should be in the lead because they WP:DONTLIKEIT. Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The requirement that the lead should summarize what's in the body is clear, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "it's a requirement that anything in the lead has to be in the body" - don't think I ever saw a sentence from the lead repeated again in the body verbatim. Zlmark (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

If the lead is a summary of the body it stands to reason that nothing can be in the lead that is not already in the body. It's not a summary if it contains information not present in the rest of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this, but my point is that there is a difference between a summary and repeating exactly the same sentence verbatim.

And if this sentence is supposed to be a summary of a larger piece of text within the body, that why is it it repeated in the body verbatim?

And if it's a more specific piece of information belonging to a narrower subtopic, then what is it doing in the lead? Zlmark (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

When u r an EC editor, u will be able to discuss that to your heart's content. Selfstudier (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that you removed my question addressed to EC who said that the edit I suggested is "uncontroversial".

I asked it, in order to understand whether there is a place to suggest a more limited edit adding or leave it altogether.

I understand that you want to prevent abuse of the system, but I would appreciate it if you could assume good faith on my part and not automatically treat any question I ask as an attempt to curcumvent the EC permissions restriction. Zlmark (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to explain this situation a number of times, to no avail, apparently. You are permitted edit requests and to respond if queried about them, that's it, nothing else. Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand your explanation, and also appreciate the time you take to provide those explanations, but you also said that there is always an element of editorial discretion involved, which is exactly why I ask you to give me a benefit of a doubt and not to treat my clarifying questions as attempt to curcumvent the restrictions or start a discussion, but as an honest attempt to understand how to phrase my edit suggestions in the most effective way possible, given the responses from the ECs. Zlmark (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Practice makes perfect. Editing in less contentious areas for a while might help. Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

ok, thanks. Zlmark (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)